Story Comments

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

This is called 'moving the goalposts', and it's a logical fallacy. The distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is largely an artifice of the pro-creationism set. From a scientific point of view, the distinction is merely a matter of time. In other words, a series of micro-evolutions (adaptations within a species) will eventually lead to a macro-evolutionary speciation event. Indeed, 'adaptations' are not even necessary. On occasion, mere genetic drift acting on 2 isolated populations over an expanse of time will leave those populations no longer being able to interbreed. For more information, Wiki or Google the phenomenon of 'ring species'.

Of course, when these examples are cited, the Creationist will automatically move the goalpost again with, "Well, it may be a different species of salamander, but it's still a salamander, right?" But then what would convince such a person of the validity of evolution? They want to be shown change in 'kind' (don't ask me for an exact definition of 'kind', even the Creationists don't have one). When it comes right down to it, they are asking to be shown a salamander changing into a frog in a single generation. Ironically, this would be better evidence for the influence of an intelligent agent than for evolution.

0 Replies